Pseudopandemic
Page 55
"Shareholders are not, in the eye of the law, part owners of the undertaking (company)"
The BoE is an incorporated entity registered in the UK as company number RC000042 [14]. Legally it is defined as a person [15], with all the legal rights and responsibilities of any other person in society. The primary duty of the directors is first and foremost to maximise the profits of the company. Shareholder profits should follow, but the directors decide how much profit the BoE needs to retain and they control the corporation. The Court of Directors control the BoE and its policies.
Nearly every person in the UK believes that the BoE is owned by the government (State franchise). This is understandable because the BoE themselves state "we are wholly-owned by the UK government." This statement is meaningless and we only need look at the BoE's own reported history [16] to understand why.
Firstly, they record:
"The Bank of England, was established by Royal Charter in 1694, to raise money to fund a war with France. Over 1,200 people purchased shares (known at the time as ‘Bank stock’) totalling £1.2 million, which was the value of the government loan."
In 1694 1,200 people came together and credited £1.2 million (an astronomical sum in the 17th century) to the British government. In doing so the government debt they created was money owed to them personally, plus interest.
The money was credited to the government to fight the Nine Year War with the French. Clearly the BoE lenders had a vested interest in the outcome of the war. Whenever a State franchise borrows from a Central Bank to finance any policy, no matter what it concerns, the Central Bank is always interested in the outcome. As they control State franchise policy it is easy to see how they manipulate events and to understand why.
The BoE add:
"Over the years.. the number of shareholders grew. Some.. stock was held by institutions and firms, such as other banks, but the majority of shareholders continued to be private individuals. In many ways, we functioned like other private companies. Profits were used to pay annual dividends.. to our shareholders. Those with more than £500 of Bank of England stock were entitled to vote at annual meetings."
Government borrowing, the business of the BoE, increased. Otherwise there would have been no additional shares to purchase. It wasn't run as a private business "in many ways," it was absolutely run as a private business. There was nothing "public" about the BoE.
Private companies, such as other private banks, increased their "shares" in the BoE. The wealthiest shareholders influenced BoE policy decided by the Directors. Which meant they influenced monetary policy and consequently government policy.
The BoE continue:
"Although we were still privately owned, from the mid-19th century onward we started to behave less like other private banks and more like a central bank."
This is the use of a form of propaganda called a "thought-terminating cliché." By saying they began acting "more like a central bank" the truism you are invited to accept is that central banks are not private businesses. It asserts that you should never question the corporate control of a central bank because we all know that "central bank" means the government's bank.
If we don't fall for this trick and take the BoE's words literally, they are telling us that they were a private corporation. They describe some of the things this corporation had the power to do:
"We had a control of issuing banknotes in England and Wales - and taking responsibility for protecting the financial system."
The individuals controlling the BoE corporation had the power to create money and controlled the British financial system. At the time, this meant they controlled the world's financial system.
Next, the BoE claim:
"We were nationalised by the government in 1946 due to our importance to the economy. Other central banks across Europe passed from private to public ownership around this time too."
There we have it then. The BoE is owned by the government after all, along with most other European central banks. The definition of nationalisation is [17]:
"The transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control."
This is what every mainstream influential economist claims to be true. We are supposed to believe that the people who had the power to create all money and to control the financial system, who owned all government debt, simply gave this power away in 1946 because they realised how important their corporate business was for the public good.
Nationalisation occurred via the 1946 Bank of England Act [18]. The Act supposedly converted all "bank stock" into "government stock." The BoE shareholders who held bank stock would be reimbursed fully and paid a dividend of 12% per annum, which progressively reduced to 3%. In 2014 then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborn said [19]:
"The government can announce it will repay in full the debt incurred to finance the 1946 nationalisation of the Bank of England."
The State franchise borrowed the money, initially at 12% interest, to nationalise the BoE in 1946. How did they borrow this money and from whom?
As previously discussed, UK government bonds are liabilities issued as "gilt-edged securities," commonly called gilts. Until 1946 the most common form of gilt was the "undated gilt." So called because they had no fixed maturity date [20].
In 1946 then Chancellor Hugh Dalton issued undated gilts to the investors holding of BoE stock to finance its purchase. In effect the BoE investors (stock holders) monetised the debt that the State franchise then used to purchase BoE stock. This deposit, in the UK Treasuries account, therefore became the BoE's liability shifting it off the balance sheets of the shareholders and on to the balance sheet of the tax payer. In exchange for this the UK tax payer became the sole shareholder of the BoE.
Shareholders do not own corporations. The Court of Directors manages the affairs of the Bank.
By their own statement we know that prior to its nationalisation the major shareholders were able to influence BoE policy. This has never been the case since the tax payer's became the shareholders. The BoE state [21]:
“When the Bank was nationalised in 1946, it meant that it was now owned by the Government rather than by private stockholders. This gave the Government the power to appoint the Bank’s governors and directors, and to issue directions to the Bank. To date, the Government’s power to issue directions has not been used.”
The BoE corporation gave none of its power away in 1946 and the State franchise has not had any influence over it since. Its original shareholders made a tidy tax payer funded profit from the stock sale but, via their GPPP stakeholder partnerships, embodied by the Court of Directors, relinquished none of their authority.
Following the 2008 financial crash the UK State Franchise passed the Financial Services Act 2012. This created the BoE's independent Financial Policy Committee (FPC) giving it more control over financial markets and regulatory authority over the financial services industry.
Short of relocating the BoE to an offshore tax haven it is difficult to imagine how the BoE could possibly be more independent. What they did was centralise and extend their already independent authority. Today the BoE declare:
"We're free from day-to-day political influence."
If someone studies economics at a GPPP funded university they will almost certainly be required to study ‘Economics,’ edited in 2009, by Krugman and Wells [22] (K&W). Along with claims made in other key texts, they will learn that central banks are somehow institutions of government.
In reference to the US Federal Reserve bank (the Fed) K&W state:
“…the legal status of the Fed is unusual: It is not exactly part of the U.S. government, but it is not really a private institution either.”
This is certainly unusual. Terms like "not exactly" and "not really" seem incongruous in a supposedly definitive text book. K&W clarify that the Fed’s board of directors are, “from the local banking and business community.” They later qualify this statement by saying:
“…the effect of thi
s complex structure is to create an institution that is ultimately accountable to the voting public, because the Board of Governors is chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate.”
This is highly misleading and it is not a complex situation. Two thirds of the Fed’s board of directors are selected by privately owned commercial banks and the other third, represented by the Board of Governors, are chosen by the Senate. Among the six governors, three are former investment bankers, one a former commercial banker, one a global financial asset management consultant and another a serving member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The truth is the Fed, like the BoE and nearly all other central banks, is run as a private corporation [23]. It is not ultimately accountable to the voting public, as suggested by K&W.
The Fed explain this as follows [24]:
"The Federal Reserve System is not 'owned' by anyone.. though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board.. do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.. the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations.. Each of the 12 Reserve Banks.. is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors."
The Fed takes orders from no one and it controls monetary policy. Alan Greenspan, former Chair of the Fed, said:
“The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place.. then what the relationships are don’t, frankly, matter.”
The 1945 Bretton Woods Agreement [25] reaffirmed the US dollar as the global reserve (base money) currency. During WWII the combatants borrowed heavily from the US State franchise who supplied most of the finance, munitions and other goods. Due to the wartime instability of foreign currencies, the US took gold as payment. This left the US controlling the vast bulk of the world’s gold reserves.
Many countries consequently had low gold reserves and could no longer link their currency to the price of gold. The Gold standard effectively ended and the dollar was firmly established as the global reserve currency as it was pegged to the price of gold. Other nations were forced to fix their currency exchange rates to the dollar as if it were gold. The US emerged from WWII as the dominant global economic power.
Other nations saw US Treasuries as stable investments and bought more dollars. However the monetary polices of the Fed and the relative value of the dollar had implications for all other central and commercial banks. Despite being supposedly pegged to gold, the dollar was created by debt monetisation like any other modern currency.
During the 1950's and 1960's continued spending on wars in Korea and then Vietnam contributed towards a growing US deficit. In response the Fed increased debt monetisation, expanding the money supply and flooding the global market with dollars. Rather than take on US Treasuries, other nations started buying gold with their dollars through the gold window.
Fearing rapidly dwindling US gold reserves the value of the dollar was instead fixed to oil prices creating the petrodollar in 1971. Oil producing nations agreed to sell oil in dollars. This ensured that oil purchasing nations still needed dollar reserves.
Bretton Woods also created two other key GPPP partners: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
The IMF oversee currency exchange rates and influences fiscal policy, offering loans to nation states, in return for interest repayments and policy commitments. The World Bank controls economic development, filtering investment, through purchasing bonds from developing nations.
Wold Bank investment comes with strings attached. The capital raised by the developing nation must be spent on economic and infrastructure development projects stipulated by the World Bank. Thus ensuring the dominant economies continue to control developing nations through debt monetisation. As we move towards a global net zero carbon economy, based upon carbon trading, that control will be maintained regardless of the future monetary system.
In 1930 the Bank for International Settlements [26] (BIS) was created to administer reparation payments following the WWI. At Bretton Woods a resolution calling for the abolition of the BIS was passed. They were widely suspected and later found guilty of laundering Nazi gold and other stolen assets, but by 1948 this resolution had been forgotten.
Just as commercial banks use central banks reserves for interbank settlement and lending, so nearly all central banks use the BIS. They explain their role and who they are "owned" by [27]:
"Our mission is to support central banks' pursuit of monetary and financial stability through international cooperation, and to act as a bank for central banks.. the BIS is owned by 63 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP."
Private commercial banks, wealthy investors and other financial stakeholders within the GPPP run the central banks as private corporations. In turn the private central banks, like the BoE and the Fed, are effectively managed by the BIS, which is also a private corporation. The Board of Directors of the BIS is formed by the Board Chair men and women of the Central banks [28].
This is precisely the system described by Prof. Carrol Quigley in the 1960's:
"A world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy.. controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks.. acting in concert.. The apex of the system.. the Bank for International Settlements.. A private bank owned and controlled by the world's central bank."
The entire global monetary system is based upon debt monetisation and the creation of money from nothing. As all money is debt the debt can never be repaid using money. Debt will always be greater than the money supply. In this monetary system if all debt were ever repaid there would be no money.
This is not a sustainable model. It is destructive and ultimately only serve those who monetise debt. Some suggest that a return to the Gold Standard would stop the money supply problem. Yet the Gold Standard, fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier, all in operation prior to WWII, only slowed the process. A return to the Gold Standard would do little to address the fundamental problem.
In any event, it seems it is too late for that now. Debt monetisation during the pseudopandemic has been on a scale unlike anything we have ever seen. The money supply has expanded far beyond the ability of the global economy to ever recover. The debt monetisers have used Quantitative Easing to such a vast extent that it is obvious they have no expectation of maintaining the global monetary system in its current form.
Hyperinflation (rampant inflation) seems the best we can hope for. Stagflation (inflation plus high unemployment) appears likely and these alone would appear to be planned as sufficient justifications for a Great Reset. With the additional impending public health threat of cyberattack ready to take down the financial system, we are set for a very big transition indeed.
Currently (June 2021) the Fed is continuing to monetise debt through purchasing assets creating more new money, primarily for the benefit of global investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard. The Central Bankers claim the current high rate of consumer price inflation is "transitory" and nothing to worry about [29]. They also claim that the reason they are doing this is to meet their inclusivity and new global green economy targets. Until they do, they intend to keep interest rates low.
Not everyone is so convinced that loading the financial markets with junk asset fuelled fairy dust is such a brilliant idea. Especially as global supply chains are under unprecedented pressure and prices are rising in the high street. Analysts like the chief economist at Deutsche Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, have called the impending hyperinflation a "time bomb." [30]:
"It may take a year longer until 2023 but inflation will re-emerge.. While it is admirable that.. the Fed’s priorities are shifting towards social goals, neglecting inflation leaves global economies sitting on a time bomb.. The effects could be devast
ating, particularly for the most vulnerable in society.”
Perhaps again we see the difference between the informed and the deceived influencer. Landau probably believes the scientific consensus on climate change, promoted by the likes of Peter Hotez and others. Yet he recognises that, in saving the planet, the people appear to be expendable. Presumably he made his warning because he thinks this matters. It seems he may be unaware that the people running the system he supports consider the "imbecilic poor" to be "human weeds."
Sources:
[1] - https://archive.is/EbRX1
[2] - https://archive.is/HTTdz
[3] - https://archive.is/R9K8P
[4] - https://archive.is/vrGpy
[5] - https://archive.is/bdJAc
[6] - https://archive.is/iYnJB
[7] - https://archive.is/OMsDr
[8] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
[9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
[10] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703405704575015520823655314
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200317055959/https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/about/legislation/matters-reserved-to-court.pdf?la=en&hash=2F9C60E0157D682145FD6EFB9014B4AEE745E15D
[12] - https://archive.is/VCUp4
[13] - https://archive.is/U7MYo
[14] - https://archive.is/hzBpt
[15] - https://archive.is/nFkcU
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201126120337/https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/KnowledgeBank/who-owns-the-bank-of-england
[17] - https://www.lexico.com/definition/nationalization
[18] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/9-10/27/contents
[19] - https://archive.is/lgu57
[20] - https://archive.is/7Rg1b
[21] - https://archive.is/kStCt
[22] - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1319181945/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inthistogethe-21&creative=6738&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=1319181945&linkId=bba5e2d06c62c4a787ff76bdf6d4bbd4
[23] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210323110303/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue63/Haring63.pdf